They also thought white people could own black people as chattel, the vote should be restricted solely to white males over the age of 21 who owned property, the loser of a presidential election should become VP, and that black people counted as 3/5 of a person for voting purposes (but said vote would be controlled by the white person who owned them).

The Founders weren't saints, and the Constitution isn't the Bible. They were greedy hypocritical farkups who managed to achieve some amazing things in spite of those imperfections, and the Constitution is a living document that has been required to change with the times.

So grow up, and accept that some regulation of your overpriced penis-extending toys may happen. And if your preacher doesn't stop politicking from the pulpit, your church may lose its tax-exempt status too. Wah.

The right to own a firearm was considered by the Framers of the Constitution in 1787 to be equal in importance to the right to speak freely, the right to peaceably assemble and the right to practice religion*

They also thought white people could own black people as chattel, the vote should be restricted solely to white males over the age of 21 who owned property, the loser of a presidential election should become VP, and that black people counted as 3/5 of a person for voting purposes (but said vote would be controlled by the white person who owned them).

The Founders weren't saints, and the Constitution isn't the Bible. They were greedy hypocritical farkups who managed to achieve some amazing things in spite of those imperfections, and the Constitution is a living document that has been required to change with the times.

So grow up, and accept that some regulation of your overpriced penis-extending toys may happen. And if your preacher doesn't stop politicking from the pulpit, your church may lose its tax-exempt status too. Wah.

/ why do I even bother posting in these stupid threads

You are completely correct. The problem is that you're trying to reason with people who probably think this is a documentary.

exactly. and there wasn't police around everywhere like there is now. there also wasn't instant communication. and most people back then lived out on their own for the most part. they had farms and had to deal with wild animals and such. I personally think people should be able to have a gun. but it should not be that easy to get. you should have to undergo a psych eval. and carry liability insurance.

Imperialism:Who's taking guns away? I'm not going to click but I assume they're terribly frightened by a threat that literally doesn't exist.

Yeah, I'm still waiting for one of these articles to give an actual, documented example of how the Obama Administration is moving to take guns away from their owners, not just "HERP A DERP NOW THAT HE'S BEEN ELECTED FARTBONGO IS GONNA SEND HIS GAY NAZI MUSLIN COMMIE STORMTROOPERS TO GET YOUR GUN"

whistleridge:The Founders weren't saints, and the Constitution isn't the Bible. They were greedy hypocritical farkups who managed to achieve some amazing things in spite of those imperfections, and the Constitution is a living document that has been required to change with the times.

There is a specific process to do that. It requires 2/3rds vote in both houses of Congress, and ratification by the legislatures of 75% of the states. We've amended the Constitution 17 times since the original 10 amendments of the Bill of Rights were ratified.

The Constitution *IS* a living document, in the sense that it can be changed to suite modern times, but you can't just say "Oh, well, we know better, so we'll just ignore the parts we don't like". The founding fathers understood that times change, and they also understood that people sometimes panic and do stupid things for transient issues, so they made the Constitution changeable, but not *EASILY* changeable.

It's brilliant, actually: It's hard enough to change it that the latest panic about whatever can't be easily written into it, but for long term changes (like stopping slavery, giving women the right to vote, etc.), you can change it. I'd say the only real exception to the "latest panic" in history was the Volstead Act, and we all know what problems that caused.

What in the hell does this even mean? If that is the reasoning behind the clause, then that is the justification and...thus...the limitation for stating the reason.

If they wanted to provide justification without the specific limitation, they would've left the "militia" clause out of the entire goddamn thing or they would've put "or for the defense of themselves". They didn't.

The right to keep and bear arms is important within the organization of a well-regulated militia. That's what the goddamn amendment says.

Well...they're right, in a way. It's true: guns don't kill people, any more than chainsaws, lathes, forklifts, or any other piece of powered equipment kills people. A gun is just a machine. In fact, a machine gun has a lot in common with a lathe.

Your often-stated belief that Armageddon will happen in your lifetime. Your fervent endorsement of literally unhinged candidates like Palin, Santorum, Rand Paul, and Bachmann. Your honest acceptance of the idea that Barack Obama is the WORST. PRESIDENT. EVAR. Your total disregard for the environment. Your utter lack of understanding of basic financial principles. The way you think you can cut taxes, increase military spending, AND balance the budget - while fighting two wars. Your constant harping on how bad it is that teachers can't lead classroom prayers and Creationism isn't taught in school, while simultaneously complaining that Islam is beginning to pervade government and we're secretly trending towards sharia law. YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT SHARIA IS.

And this isn't about you being 'conservative', either. Reagan was a conservative's conservative. I didn't like him, but I could work for him. George H. W. Bush was a conservative, and while I didn't agree with his fiscal policies I did and do respect the hell out of the man. He's everything a proud public servant should embody. I don't agree with all conservative policies, but I acknowledge there is underlying logic to many of them, and - pay attention, because this is important - I can work with them.

But you...you're ignorant, uneducated, absolutist, utterly unwilling to compromise, and apparently divorced from reality. And no...I don't want you to have a gun. If you honestly think Obama was born in Kenya, the Ryan Budget can work, and war with Iran is inevitable, you aren't safe to trust with a bb gun, much less an assault rifle.

American Stinker- Those who brought you this gem: "What's with the revenge theme coming from two successful black multimillionaires? First it was Barack Obama. Now Beyonce has posted this vengeful message on her Tumblr account following Romney's defeat:Take That Mitches".

By all means, colonial LARPers, do as the founding fathers would have! I mean, since you are always such strict constructionists and argue that the Constitution has no wiggle room -- you know, in case an outdated law needed to be amended to keep with the times -- I assume you also will fire as the founding fathers fired, refusing the brute machinery of the current times. Enjoy defending your home from the British.

What in the hell does this even mean? If that is the reasoning behind the clause, then that is the justification and...thus...the limitation for stating the reason.

If they wanted to provide justification without the specific limitation, they would've left the "militia" clause out of the entire goddamn thing or they would've put "or for the defense of themselves". They didn't.

The right to keep and bear arms is important within the organization of a well-regulated militia. That's what the goddamn amendment says.

yep. my interpretation of that is that it requires membership into a group like police or national guard. a state sanctioned force.

Hobodeluxe:and not just any militia mind you. a "well ordered" militia. in other words, one with firm and fast rules and regulations under which there is a command structure.

"If a well regulated militia be the most natural defence of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security...confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority...(and) reserving to the states...the authority of training the militia"

They also thought white people could own black people as chattel, the vote should be restricted solely to white males over the age of 21 who owned property, the loser of a presidential election should become VP, and that black people counted as 3/5 of a person for voting purposes (but said vote would be controlled by the white person who owned them).

Maybe you mean to say that blacks counted as 3/5 of a person for apportionment purposes (as in, how many seats a state got in the House and how many EVs a state got). Slaves didn't have the right to vote, and any white man with property that did still only got one vote.

This is actually a common misconception...even TDS got it wrong, for humor ("I cast my 5 slaves' 3 votes for James K. Polk"). If people who made the misconception were correct, then women and children would have been voting as well (as they are counted as "free persons" in that clause of the Constitution, despite not having the right to vote.)

If you're worried about me, then the guns are irrelevant, because I have any number of things I can quickly and efficiently kill you with.

Failing that, I could just make a gun. It's not that hard: Guns are a 600 year old technology that can be made with tools and materials far inferior to what you can find at your local Home Depot. I could make a dandy single shot zip gun with some steel gas pipe, a few hardware doo-dads, some strike-anywhere matches, and maybe a chunk of wood for a stock, and that gun will kill you just as dead as the latest polymer-framed "Wonder Nine".

Guys, they discussed all of this on paper. You don't have to speculate or bring up fossil firearms.

What they felt was important was to maintain a certain level of the ability to do violence at the grassroots level, to mitigate the imbalance of power that exists whenever you have a government.Governments always have the capacity to exert physical force. The 2nd amendment is to preserve the people's right to use physical force if necessary, both for self defense and as an impediment for tyrannical rulers.

They have discussed this at great length and in a number of important books and papers. Instead of speculating about what they meant, you should read the documents they wrote to explain themselves.

If you're worried about me, then the guns are irrelevant, because I have any number of things I can quickly and efficiently kill you with.

Failing that, I could just make a gun. It's not that hard: Guns are a 600 year old technology that can be made with tools and materials far inferior to what you can find at your local Home Depot. I could make a dandy single shot zip gun with some steel gas pipe, a few hardware doo-dads, some strike-anywhere matches, and maybe a chunk of wood for a stock, and that gun will kill you just as dead as the latest polymer-framed "Wonder Nine".

I can also make large bombs with common materials, so those should be perfectly legal too, right?

ChaoticLimbs:Guys, they discussed all of this on paper. You don't have to speculate or bring up fossil firearms.

What they felt was important was to maintain a certain level of the ability to do violence at the grassroots level, to mitigate the imbalance of power that exists whenever you have a government.Governments always have the capacity to exert physical force. The 2nd amendment is to preserve the people's right to use physical force if necessary, both for self defense and as an impediment for tyrannical rulers.

They have discussed this at great length and in a number of important books and papers. Instead of speculating about what they meant, you should read the documents they wrote to explain themselves.